Non-regular electrical stimulation patterns designed with a cost function for treating neurological disorders

ABSTRACT

Systems and methods for stimulation of neurological tissue generate stimulation trains with temporal patterns of stimulation, in which the interval between electrical pulses (the inter-pulse intervals) changes or varies over time. Compared to conventional continuous, high rate pulse trains having regular (i.e., constant) inter-pulse intervals, the non-regular (i.e., not constant) pulse patterns or trains that embody features of the invention provide a lower average frequency.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.14/583,932, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,242,095, filed on Dec. 29, 2014, andentitled “A Neural Stimulation Device with Non- Regular StimulationPatterns Designed with a Cost Function for Treating NeurologicalDisorders,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.13/770,731, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,923,981, filed on Feb. 19, 2013, andentitled “Non-Regular Electrical Stimulation Patterns Designed With aCost Function for Treating Neurological Disorders,” which claims thebenefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/600,264, entitled“Non-Regular Electrical Stimulation Patterns for Treating NeurologicalDisorders” filed on Feb. 17, 2012 and which is a continuation-in-part ofU.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/587,295, now U.S. Pat. No.8,447,405, filed Oct. 5, 2009, and entitled “Non-Regular ElectricalStimulation Patterns for Treating Neurological Disorders,” which claimedthe benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/102,575,filed Oct. 3, 2008, and entitled “Stimulation Patterns For TreatingNeurological Disorders Via Deep Brain Stimulation,” which are allincorporated herein by reference.

FIELD OF INVENTION

This invention relates to systems and methods for stimulating nerves inanimals, including humans.

BACKGROUND

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has been found to be successful in treatinga variety of brain-controlled disorders, including movement disorders.Generally, such treatment involves placement of a DBS type lead into atargeted region of the brain through a burr hole drilled in thepatient's skull, and the application of appropriate stimulation throughthe lead to the targeted region.

Presently, in DBS, beneficial (symptom-relieving) effects are observedprimarily at high stimulation frequencies above 100 Hz that aredelivered in stimulation patterns or trains in which the intervalbetween electrical pulses (the inter-pulse intervals) is constant overtime. The trace of a conventional stimulation train for DBS is shown inFIG. 2. The beneficial effects of DBS on motor symptoms are onlyobserved at high frequencies, while low frequency stimulation hasgenerally been thought to exacerbate symptoms. For instance, thalamicDBS at less than or equal to 50 Hz has been shown to increase tremor inpatients with essential tremor. Similarly, 50 Hz DBS has been shown toproduce or induce tremor in pain patients receiving simulation of theventral posterior medial nucleus of the thalamus (VPM), but the tremordisappears when the frequency is increased. Likewise, DBS of thesubthalamic nucleus (STN) at 10 Hz has been shown to worsen akinesia inpatients with Parkinson's disease (PD), while DBS at 130 Hz leads tosignificant improvement in motor function. Similarly, relatively highfrequency stimulation of the globus pallidus (GP) at or above 130 Hz hasbeen shown to improve dystonia, whereas stimulation at either 5 or 50 Hzmay lead to significant worsening.

Model studies also indicate that the masking of pathological burstactivity occurs only with sufficiently high stimulation frequencies. SeeGrill et al. 2004, FIG. 1. Responsiveness of tremor to changes in DBSamplitude and frequency are strongly correlated with the ability ofapplied stimuli to mask neuronal bursting. See Kuncel et al. 2007, FIG.2.

Although effective, conventional high frequency stimulation generatesstronger side-effects than low frequency stimulation, and thetherapeutic window between the voltage that generates the desiredclinical effect(s) and the voltage that generates undesired side effectsdecreases with increasing frequency. Precise lead placement thereforebecomes important. Further, high stimulation frequencies increase powerconsumption. The need for higher frequencies and increased powerconsumption shortens the useful lifetime and/or increases the physicalsize of battery-powered implantable pulse generators. The need forhigher frequencies and increased power consumption requires a largerbattery size, and/or frequent charging of the battery, if the battery isrechargeable, or replacement of the battery if it is not rechargeable.

SUMMARY

The invention provides stimulation patterns or trains with differenttemporal patterns of stimulation than conventional stimulation trains.The invention also provides methodologies to identify and characterizestimulation patterns or trains that produce desired relief of symptoms,while reducing the average stimulation frequency.

According to one aspect of the invention, the intervals betweenstimulation pulses in a pulse pattern or train (in shorthand called “theinter-pulse intervals”) is not constant over time, but changes or variesover time. These patterns or trains are consequently called in shorthand“non-regular.” According to this aspect of the invention, thenon-regular (i.e., not constant) pulse patterns or trains provide alower average frequency for a given pulse pattern or train, compared toconventional continuous, high rate pulse trains having regular (i.e.,constant) inter-pulse intervals. Having a lower average frequency, thenon-regular stimulus patterns or trains make possible an increase in theefficacy of stimulation by reducing the intensity of side effects; byincreasing the dynamic range between the onset of the desired clinicaleffect(s) and side effects (and thereby reducing sensitivity to theposition of the lead electrode); and by decreasing power consumption,thereby providing a longer useful battery life and/or a smallerimplantable pulse generator, allowing battery size reduction and/or, forrechargeable batteries, longer intervals between recharging.

The non-regular stimulation patterns or trains can be readily applied todeep brain stimulation, to treat a variety of neurological disorders,such as Parkinson's disease, movement disorders, epilepsy, andpsychiatric disorders such as obsessive-compulsion disorder anddepression. The non-regular stimulation patterns or trains can also bereadily applied to other classes electrical stimulation of the nervoussystem including, but not limited to, cortical stimulation, spinal cordstimulation, and peripheral nerve stimulation (including sensory andmotor), to provide the attendant benefits described above and to treatdiseases such as but not limited to Parkinson's Disease, EssentialTremor, Movement Disorders, Dystonia, Epilepsy, Pain, psychiatricdisorders such as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Depression, andTourette's Syndrome.

According to another aspect of the invention, systems and methodologiesmake it possible to determine the effects of the temporal pattern of DBSon simulated and measured neuronal activity, as well as motor symptomsin both animals and humans. The methodologies make possible thequalitative determination of the temporal features of stimulationtrains.

The systems and methodologies described herein employ a geneticalgorithm, coupled to a computational model of DBS of the STN, todevelop non-regular patterns of stimulation that produced efficacy (asmeasured by a low error function, E) at lower stimulation frequencies,F. The error function, E, is a quantitative measure from the model whichassesses how faithfully the thalamus transmitted motor commands that aregenerated by inputs from the cortex. A very high correlation existsbetween E and symptoms in persons with PD, and therefore E is a validpredictor for the efficacy of a stimulation train in relieving symptoms(see Dorval et al., 2007).

Previous efforts (see Feng et al. 2007) sought to design stimulationtrains that minimized the total current injection. The systems andmethodologies disclosed herein include an objective function thatmaximizes therapeutic benefit (by minimizing the error function) andimproves stimulation efficiency (by reducing the stimulation frequency),using a model of the STN that reproduces the frequency tuning of symptomreduction that has been documented clinically. In contrast, the Feng etal. model showed, incorrectly, symptom reduction with regular, lowfrequency stimulation. The inventors have identified novel non-regulartemporal patterns of stimulation, while Feng et al. identified regularlow frequency (˜10 Hz) trains that previous clinical work hasdemonstrated to be ineffective.

A neural stimulation device may include a pulse generator configured totransmit a first temporal pattern of stimulation for application toneurological tissue having a first non-regular pulse train, the firstnon-regular pulse train including a first plurality of single pulses(first singlets) and embedded first multiple pulse groups (firstn-lets), with non-regular inter-pulse intervals between the firstsinglets and first n-lets, as well as non-regular inter-pulse intervalswithin the first n-lets themselves. The pulse generator may also beconfigured to transmit a second temporal pattern of stimulation forapplication to neurological tissue having a second non-regular pulsetrain, the second non-regular pulse train including a second pluralityof single pulses (second singlets) and embedded second multiple pulsegroups (second n-lets), with non-regular inter-pulse intervals betweensecond singlets and second n-lets, as well as non-regular inter-pulseintervals within the second n-lets themselves, the second temporalpattern adapted from applying a model-based optimization technique afterapplication of the first temporal pattern of stimulation.

A method for stimulation of a targeted neurological tissue region mayinclude the steps of applying electrical current to a targetedneurological tissue region of an animal using a pulse generatoraccording to a first non-regular pulse train including a first pluralityof single pulses (first singlets) and embedded first multiple pulsegroups (first n-lets), with non-regular inter-pulse intervals betweenthe first singlets and first n-lets, as well as non-regular inter-pulseintervals within the first n-lets themselves, and analyzing results ofthe first non-regular pulse train. The method may further include thesteps of applying a model-based optimization technique determining asecond non-regular pulse trains including a second plurality of singlepulses (second singlets) and embedded second multiple pulse groups(second n-lets), with non-regular inter-pulse intervals between secondsinglets and second n-lets, as well as non-regular inter-pulse intervalswithin the second n-lets themselves, and applying electrical current tothe targeted neurological tissue region of the animal using the pulsegenerator according to the second non-regular pulse train.

A neural stimulation device may include a pulse generator configured toapply a first non-regular pulse train, having at least one first singletspaced apart by a first inter-pulse singlet interval and at least onefirst n-let having, for each n-let, two or more pulses spaced apart by afirst inter-pulse interval that is less than the first singletinter-pulse interval. The pulse generator may also be configurable toapply a second non-regular pulse train, having at least one secondsinglet spaced apart by a second inter-pulse singlet interval and atleast one second n-let having, for each n-let, two or more pulses spacedapart by a second inter-pulse interval that is less than the secondsinglet inter-pulse interval, the second non-regular pulse trail basedupon an analysis of the first non-regular pulse train. The neuralstimulation device may also include at least one input configured tooperatively connect with at least one electrode.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Operation of the invention may be better understood by reference to thedetailed description taken in connection with the followingillustrations, wherein:

FIG. 1 is an anatomic view of a system for stimulating tissue of thecentral nervous system that includes an lead implanted in brain tissuecoupled to a pulse generator that is programmed to provide non-regular(i.e., not constant) pulse patterns or trains, in which the intervalbetween electrical pulses (the inter-pulse intervals) changes or variesover time.

FIG. 2 is a diagrammatic trace that shows a conventional regular highfrequency stimulation train, in which the interval between electricalpulses (the inter-pulse intervals) is constant.

FIG. 3 is a diagrammatic trace showing a representative example of arepeating non-regular pulse pattern or train in which the inter-pulseintervals are linearly cyclically ramped over time.

FIGS. 4 and 5 are diagrammatic traces showing other representativeexamples of repeating non-regular pulse patterns or trains comprisingwithin, a single pulse train, a combination of single pulses (singlets)and embedded multiple pulse groups (n-lets), with non-regularinter-pulse intervals between singlets and n-lets as well as non-regularinter-pulse intervals within the multiple pulse n-lets.

FIG. 6 is a reproduction of Example FIG. 1, as described below.

FIG. 7 is a reproduction of Example FIG. 2, as described below.

FIG. 8 is a reproduction of Example FIG. 3, as described below.

FIG. 9 is a reproduction of Example FIG. 4, as described below.

FIG. 10 is a reproduction of Example FIG. 5, as described below.

FIG. 11 is a raster of the neuronal firings of ten neurons in each ofthe subthalamic nucleus, the global pallidus exterior, and the globalpallidus interior, generated by a computer model of a healthy human.

FIG. 12 is a raster of the neuronal firings of ten neurons in each ofthe subthalamic nucleus, the global pallidus exterior, and the globalpallidus interior, generated by a computer model of a human having aneurological condition, such as Parkinson's Disease.

FIG. 13 is a raster of the neuronal firings of ten neurons in each ofthe subthalamic nucleus, the global pallidus exterior, and the globalpallidus interior, generated by a computer model of an electrical deepbrain stimulation of regular interval applied to the subthalamic nucleusat 45 Hertz.

FIG. 14 is a raster of the neuronal firings of ten neurons in each ofthe subthalamic nucleus, the global pallidus exterior, and the globalpallidus interior, generated by a computer model of an electrical deepbrain stimulation of regular interval applied to the subthalamic nucleusat 100 Hertz.

FIG. 15 is a plot of a computer-generated error fraction of a regularinterval electrical DBS applied at the given average frequency.

FIG. 16 diagrammatically illustrates an embodiment of a computer modelthat may be used to analyze and generate embodiments stimulationpatterns according to the present invention.

FIG. 17 is a diagram of a general genetic algorithm process.

FIG. 18 is an embodiment of a generational crossover of stimulationpatterns according to the present invention.

FIG. 19 is a plot of a percent decrease cost function versus the numberof generations run in an evolutionary algorithm according to the presentinvention.

FIG. 20 is a raster of the neuronal firings of ten neurons in each ofthe subthalamic nucleus, the global pallidus exterior, and the globalpallidus interior, generated by a computer model of an electrical deepbrain stimulation applied to the subthalamic nucleus according to afirst embodiment of a stimulation pattern according to the presentinvention.

FIG. 21 is a raster of the neuronal firings of ten neurons in each ofthe subthalamic nucleus, the global pallidus exterior, and the globalpallidus interior, generated by a computer model of an electrical deepbrain stimulation applied to the subthalamic nucleus according to asecond embodiment of a stimulation pattern according to the presentinvention.

FIG. 22 is a raster of the neuronal firings of ten neurons in each ofthe subthalamic nucleus, the global pallidus exterior, and the globalpallidus interior, generated by a computer model of an electrical deepbrain stimulation applied to the subthalamic nucleus according to athird embodiment of a stimulation pattern according to the presentinvention.

FIG. 23 is FIG. 15, further including a plot of the computer modelederror fractions generated by the use of the stimulation patterns ofFIGS. 20-22.

FIG. 24 is a graph of a quantitative measurement of the performance ofthe stimulation pattern of FIG. 20 as compared to other stimulationpatterns in two human patients which had been diagnosed with Parkinson'sDisease.

FIG. 25 is a graph of a quantitative measurement of the performance ofthe stimulation pattern of FIG. 20 as compared to other stimulationpatterns in a human patient which had been diagnosed with Parkinson'sDisease and had tremor as a primary motor impairment related thereto.

FIG. 26 includes graphs in the frequency domain of an average power often GPi neuronal firing sequences across a single iteration of theindicated stimulation, where such sequences were computer modelgenerated.

FIG. 27 is a tuning curve indicating the average power of ten GPineuronal firing sequences across ten iterations of the indicatedstimulation, where such sequences were computer model generated.

FIG. 28A is a graphical representation of a measure of an experimentaltremor during a trial.

FIG. 28B is a graphical representation of amplitude of tremors with apower spectral density calculated for each of the measured amplitudes.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Reference will now be made in detail to exemplary embodiments of thepresent invention, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanyingdrawings. It is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilizedand structural and functional changes may be made without departing fromthe respective scope of the invention. Moreover, features of the variousembodiments may be combined or altered without departing from the scopeof the invention. As such, the following description is presented by wayof illustration only and should not limit in any way the variousalternatives and modifications that may be made to the illustratedembodiments and still be within the spirit and scope of the invention.

FIG. 1 is a system 10 for stimulating tissue of the central nervoussystem. The system may include a lead 12 placed in a desired position incontact with central nervous system tissue. In the illustratedembodiment, the lead 12 may be implanted in a region of the brain, suchas the thalamus, subthalamus, or globus pallidus for the purpose of deepbrain stimulation. However, it should be understood, the lead 12 may beimplanted in, on, or near the spinal cord; or in, on, or near aperipheral nerve (sensory or motor) for the purpose of selectivestimulation to achieve a therapeutic purpose.

The distal end of the lead 12 may carry one or more electrodes 14 toapply electrical pulses to the targeted tissue region. The electricalpulses may be supplied by a pulse generator 16 coupled to the lead 12.

In the illustrated embodiment, the pulse generator 16 may be implantedin a suitable location remote from the lead 12, e.g., in the shoulderregion. It should be appreciated, however, that the pulse generator 16may be placed in other regions of the body, i.e., implanted in anysuitable location, or externally.

When implanted, the case of the pulse generator 16 may serve as areference or return electrode. Alternatively, the lead 12 may include areference or return electrode (comprising a bi-polar arrangement), or aseparate reference or return electrode may be implanted or attachedelsewhere on the body (comprising a mono-polar arrangement).

The pulse generator 16 may include an on-board, programmablemicroprocessor 18, which carries embedded code. The code may expresspre-programmed rules or algorithms under which a desired electricalstimulation waveform pattern or train is generated and distributed tothe electrode(s) 14 on the lead 12. According to these programmed rules,the pulse generator 16 may direct the prescribed stimulation waveformpatterns or trains through the lead 12 to the electrode(s) 14, whichserve to selectively stimulate the targeted tissue region. The code maybe preprogrammed by a clinician to achieve the particular physiologicresponse desired.

In the illustrated embodiment, an on-board battery 20 may supply powerto the microprocessor 18. Currently, batteries 20 must be replaced every1 to 9 years, depending on the stimulation parameters needed to treat adisorder. When the battery life ends, the replacement of batteriesrequires another invasive surgical procedure to gain access to theimplanted pulse generator. As will be described, the system 10 makespossible, among its several benefits, an increase in battery life.

The stimulation waveform pattern or train generated by the pulsegenerator differs from convention pulse patterns or trains in that thewaveform comprises repeating non-regular (i.e., not constant) pulsepatterns or trains, in which the interval between electrical pulses (theinter-pulse intervals or IPI) changes or varies over time. Examples ofthese repeating non-regular pulse patterns or trains are shown in FIGS.3 to 5. Compared to conventional pulse trains having regular (i.e.,constant) inter-pulse intervals (as shown in FIG. 2), the non-regular(i.e., not constant) pulse patterns or trains provide a lower averagefrequency for a given pulse pattern or train, where the averagefrequency for a given pulse train (expressed in hertz or Hz) is definedas the sum of the inter-pulse intervals for the pulse train in seconds(Σ_(IPI)) divided by the number of pulses (n) in the given pulse train,or (Σ_(IPI))/n. A lower average frequency makes possible a reduction inthe intensity of side effects, as well as an increase in the dynamicrange between the onset of the desired clinical effect(s) and sideeffects, thereby increasing the clinical efficacy and reducingsensitivity to the position of the electrode(s). A lower averagefrequency brought about by a non-regular pulse pattern or train alsoleads to a decrease in power consumption, thereby prolonging batterylife and reducing battery size.

The repeating non-regular (i.e., not constant) pulse patterns or trainscan take a variety of different forms. For example, as will be describedin greater detail later, the inter-pulse intervals can be linearlycyclically ramped over time in non-regular temporal patterns (growinglarger and/or smaller or a combination of each over time); or beperiodically embedded in non-regular temporal patterns comprisingclusters or groups of multiple pulses (called n-lets), wherein n is twoor more. For example, when n=2, the n-let can be called a doublet; whenn=3, the n-let can be called a triplet; when n=4, the n-let can becalled a quadlet; and so on. The repeating non-regular pulse patterns ortrains can comprise combinations of single pulses (called singlets)spaced apart by varying non-regular inter-pulse intervals and n-letsinterspersed among the singlets, the n-lets themselves being spacedapart by varying non-regular inter-pulse intervals both between adjacentn-lets and between the n pulses embedded in the n-let. If desired, thenon-regularity of the pulse pattern or train can be accompanied byconcomitant changes in waveform and/or amplitude, and/or duration ineach pulse pattern or train or in successive pulse patterns or trains.

Each pulse comprising a singlet or imbedded in an n-let in a given traincomprises a waveform that can be monophasic, biphasic, or multiphasic.Each waveform possesses a given amplitude (expressed, e.g., in amperes)that can, by way of example, range from 10 μa (E⁻⁶) to 10 ma (E⁻³). Theamplitude of a given phase in a waveform can be the same or differ amongthe phases. Each waveform also possesses a duration (expressed, e.g., inseconds) that can, by way of example, range from 10 μs (E⁻⁶) to 2 ms(E⁻³). The duration of the phases in a given waveform can likewise bethe same or different. It is emphasized that all numerical valuesexpressed herein are given by way of example only. They can be varied,increased or decreased, according to the clinical objectives.

When applied in deep brain stimulation, it is believed that repeatingstimulation patterns or trains applied with non-regular inter-pulseintervals can regularize the output of disordered neuronal firing, tothereby prevent the generation and propagation of bursting activity witha lower average stimulation frequency than required with conventionalconstant frequency trains, i.e., with a lower average frequency thanabout 100 Hz. FIG. 3 shows a representative example of a repeatingnon-regular pulse pattern or train in which the inter-pulse intervalsare linearly cyclically ramped over time. As shown in FIG. 3, the pulsepattern or train includes singlet pulses (singlets) spaced apart byprogressively increasing inter-pulse intervals providing a decrease infrequency over time, e.g., having an initial instantaneous frequency of140 Hz, decreasing with doubling inter-pulse intervals, to a finalinstantaneous frequency of 40 Hz. The inter-pulse intervals can varywithin a specified range selected based upon clinical objections, e.g.,not to exceed 25 ms, or not to exceed 100 ms, or not to exceed 200 ms,to take into account burst responses and subsequent disruption ofthalamic fidelity. The non-regular pulse trains repeat themselves for aclinically appropriate period of time. As shown in FIG. 3, the firstpulse train comprises progressively increasing inter-pulse intervalsfrom smallest to largest, followed immediately by another essentiallyidentical second pulse train comprising progressively increasinginter-pulse intervals from smallest to largest, followed immediately byan essentially identical third pulse train, and so on. Therefore,between successive pulse trains, there is an instantaneous change fromthe largest inter-pulse interval (at the end of one train) to thesmallest inter-pulse interval (at the beginning of the next successivetrain). The train shown in FIG. 3 has an average frequency of 85 Hz andis highly non-regular, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of about0.5. As is demonstrated in the following Example (Batch 3), theincreased efficiency of the pulse train shown in FIG. 3 (due to thelower average frequency) also can provide greater efficacy, as comparedto a constant 100 Hz pulse pattern.

The train shown in FIG. 3 exploits the dynamics of burst generation inthalamic neurons. The early high frequency phase of the train masksintrinsic activity in subthalamic nucleus (STN) neurons, and theinter-pulse interval increases reduce the average frequency. A family oftrains can be provided by varying the initial frequency, finalfrequency, and rate of change within the train, with the objective toprevent thalamic bursting with a lower average stimulation frequencythan required with constant frequency trains.

FIGS. 4 and 5 show other representative examples of repeatingnon-regular pulse patterns or trains. The pulse trains in FIGS. 4 and 5comprise within, a single pulse train, a combination of single pulses(singlets) and embedded multiple pulse groups (n-lets), with non-regularinter-pulse intervals between singlets and n-lets, as well asnon-regular inter-pulse intervals within the n-lets themselves. Thenon-regular pulse trains repeat themselves for a clinically appropriateperiod of time.

The non-regular pulse train can be characterized as comprising one ormore singlets spaced apart by a minimum inter-pulse singlet interval andone or more n-lets comprising, for each n-let, two or more pulses spacedapart by an inter-pulse interval (called the “n-let inter-pulseinterval”) that is less than the minimum singlet inter-pulse interval.The n-let inter-pulse interval can itself vary within the train, as canthe interval between successive n-lets or a successive n-lets andsinglets. The non-regular pulse trains comprising singlets and n-letsrepeat themselves for a clinically appropriate period of time.

In FIG. 4, each pulse train comprises four singlets in succession (withnon-regular inter-pulse intervals there between); followed by fourdoublets in succession (with non-regular inter-doublet pulse intervalsthere between and non-regular inter-pulse intervals within each n-let);followed by a singlet, three doublets, and a singlet (with non-regularinter-pulse intervals there between and non-regular inter-pulseintervals within each n-let). The temporal pattern of this pulse trainrepeats itself in succession for a clinically appropriate period oftime. The non-regular temporal pulse pattern shown in FIG. 4 has anaverage frequency of 67.82 Hz without loss of efficacy, as isdemonstrated in the following Example, Batch 17.

In FIG. 5, each pulse train comprises four singlets in succession (withnon-regular inter-pulse intervals there between); followed by threedoublets in succession (with non-regular inter-doublet pulse intervalsthere between and non-regular inter-pulse intervals within each n-let).The temporal pattern of this pulse train repeats itself in successionfor a clinically appropriate period of time. The non-regular temporalpulse pattern shown in FIG. 5 has an average frequency of 87.62 Hzwithout loss of efficacy, as is demonstrated in the following Example,Batch 18.

The following Example illustrates a representative methodology fordeveloping and identifying candidate non-regular stimulation trains asshown in FIGS. 3 to 5 that achieve comparable or better efficacy at alower average frequency (i.e., more efficiency) than constantinter-pulse interval trains.

EXAMPLE

Computational models of thalamic DBS (McIntyre et al. 2004, Birdno,2009) and subthalamic DBS (Rubin and Terman, 2004) can be used withgenetic-algorithm-based optimization (Davis, 1991) (GA) to designnon-regular stimulation patterns or trains that produce desired reliefof symptoms with a lower average stimulation frequency than regular,high-rate stimulation. McIntyre et al. 2004, Birdno, 2009; Rubin andTerman, 2004; and Davis, 1991 are incorporated herein by reference.

In the GA implementation, the stimulus train (pattern) is the chromosomeof the organism, and each gene in the chromosome is the IPI between twosuccessive pulses in the train. The implementation can start, e.g., withtrains of 21 pulses (20 genes) yielding a train length of ˜400 ms (ataverage frequency of 50 Hz), and the 6 s trains required for stimulationare built by serial concatenation of 15 identical pulse trains. Theprocess can start with an initial population of, e.g., 50 organisms,constituted of random IPI's drawn from a uniform distribution. At eachstep (generation) of the GA, the fitness of each pulse train isevaluated using either the TC or basal ganglia network model (identifiedabove) and calculating a cost function, C. From each generation, the 10best stimulus trains (lowest C) are selected, to be carried forward tothe next generation. They will also be combined (mated) and randomvariations (mutations) introduced into the 40 offspring, yielding 50trains in each generation. This process assures that the beststimulation trains (traits) are carried through to the next generation,while avoiding local minima (i.e., mating and mutations preserve geneticdiversity). See Grefenstette 1986. The GA continues through successivegenerations until the median and minimum values of the cost functionreach a plateau, and this will yield candidate trains.

The objective is to find patterns of non-constant inter-pulse intervaldeep brain stimulation trains that provide advantageous results, asdefined by low frequency and low error rate. An error function isdesirably created that assigns the output of each temporal pattern ofstimulation a specific error fraction (E) based on how the voltageoutput of the thalamic cells correspond to the timing of the inputstimulus. Using this error fraction, a cost function (C) is desirablycreated to minimize both frequency and error fraction, according torepresentative equation C=W*E+K*f, where C is the cost, E is the errorfraction, f is the average frequency of the temporal pattern ofstimulation, W is an appropriate weighting factor for the errorfunction, and K is an appropriate weighting factor for the frequency.The weighting factors W and K allow quantitative differentiation betweenefficacy (E) and efficiency (f) to generate patterns of non-constantinter-pulse interval deep brain stimulation trains that provideadvantageous results with lower average frequencies, compared toconventional constant frequency pulse trains.

With this cost function, the voltage output of several candidatetemporal patterns of stimulation can be evaluated and the costcalculated. Temporal patterns of stimulation with a low cost can then beused to create new temporal patterns of similar features in an attemptto achieve even lower costs. In this way, new temporal patterns ofstimulation can be “bred” for a set number of generations and the besttemporal patterns of stimulation of each batch recorded.

Several batches of the genetic algorithm yields useful results in thatthey achieve lower costs than the corresponding constant frequency DBSwaveforms. Some batches can be run in an attempt to find especially lowfrequency temporal patterns of stimulation, by changing the costfunction to weight frequency more heavily, or vice versa (i.e., bychanging W and/or K). These batches can also yield lower cost resultsthan the constant-frequency waveforms.

By way of example, a total of 14 batches of the genetic algorithm wererun and evaluated with various cost functions and modified initialparameters.

Before the trials were run, a baseline was established by runningconstant-frequency patterns of stimulation through the model andanalyzing the associated error fractions (Example FIG. 1). As can beseen from Example FIG. 1 (FIG. 6), the healthy condition produced a lowerror fraction of 0.1 while the Parkinsonian condition without DBSyielded a higher error fraction of 0.5. From these results, constanthigh-frequency patterns of stimulation ranging from 100-200 Hz gave nearperfect results. Novel non-constant temporal patterns of stimulationwould then be considered advantageous if they showed error fractionsvery close to 0.1 with average frequencies less than 100-200 Hz.

The first set of batches was run by minimizing only the error fraction(E). Thus, the associated cost function was simply C=E. The results aresummarized according to average frequency and error fraction (ExampleTable 1). The associated inter-pulse intervals (IPI's) can be seen inExample FIG. 2 (FIG. 7). Batch 3 outputted an error fraction 0.054.Another feature is that the IPI's in Batch 3 gradually increased untilabout 40 msec, and then repeated itself. This provides support that ramptrains are advantageous. The trace shown in FIG. 3 generallyincorporates the temporal features of Batch 3.

The remaining batches yielded error fractions higher than 0.1 and wereno better than the 150 Hz constant-frequency case.

EXAMPLE TABLE 1 Error Fraction Only, C = E # Average Frequency ErrorFraction IPI Length 3 127.5 0.054  5 4 95.62 0.162 39 5 113.6 0.139 13 694.64 0.132 26 7 101.6 0.142 31

Because many batches were yielding error fractions above 0.1 (healthycondition), and only a small window of error fraction less than the 150Hz DBS case would be useful, a new cost function was constructed tominimize an alternate feature of the temporal patterns of stimulation;namely, frequency. This new cost function weighted the error fractionand frequency, yielding the equation C=1000*E+F, where C is cost, E iserror fraction, and F is the average frequency of the waveform in Hz,W=1000, and K=1.

In order to establish a new baseline cost, the constant-frequencypatterns of stimulation were evaluated again according to the new costfunction (Example FIG. 3-FIG. 8). As can be seen from the graph, thehealthy condition reported a cost of 90.65 and the Parkinson case withno DBS yielded 505.50. The best constant-frequency pattern ofstimulation with the new cost function was the 100 Hz case with a costof 231.11. This new cost function allowed for a wider range ofsolutions, because a temporal pattern of stimulation would be considereduseful if it had a cost less than 231.11 but presumably higher than90.65.

The results of the new cost function can be seen in Example Table 2 andthe IPI's visualized in Example FIG. 4 (FIG. 9). The best results wereseen in batches 15 and 18, which had the lowest costs. Batch 18 alsoexhibits a ramp-like pattern of increasing interpulse intervals. Itshows a steadily falling IPI, followed by a sudden rise, and then aquick fall, rise, and fall—almost as if it consists of 3 smaller ramps.The trace shown in FIG. 5 generally incorporates the temporal featuresof Batch 18. Batch 15 also performed very well, but its qualitativefeatures are more difficult to discern.

EXAMPLE TABLE 2 Cost Function, C = 1000*E + F Average Error # FrequencyIPI Length Fraction Cost 9 94.74 34 0.124 218.8 13 132.9 12 0.087 219.415 98.00 17 0.098 196.0 18 81.28 10 0.116 197.3 19 84.70 20 0.116 201.2

The advantage of low frequency was emphasized with a new cost function,which weighted frequency more heavily, C=1000*E+2*F. Because thefrequency of DBS does not affect the healthy condition or the PD with noDBS, these baseline costs stayed the same at 90.65 and 505.50,respectively. The 100 Hz was again the best constant-frequency temporalpattern of stimulation, with a cost of 331.11. The following temporalpatterns of stimulation, then, were considered useful if they had lowfrequencies and costs less than 331.11 and greater than 90.65.

The results of the revised cost function can be seen in Example Table 3and the IPI's visualized in Example FIG. 5 (FIG. 10). Of the resultingbatches, batch 17 proved most interesting because of its very lowaverage frequency of 67.82 Hz. Even with such a low frequency, itmanaged to prove better than the 100 Hz condition with a reduction incost of about 10. The waveform of batch 17 is interesting in that itconsists of a ramp pattern of decreasing IPI in the first 100 msec,followed by a continual shift between large IPI and small IPI. Thequalitative feature of quickly changing between large and small IPI'smay prove advantageous. The trace shown in FIG. 4 generally incorporatesthe temporal features of Batch 17.

EXAMPLE TABLE 3 Revised Cost Function, Cost = 1000*E + 2*F Average #Frequency IPI Length Error Fraction Cost 16 84.92 47 0.239 323.8 1767.82 20 0.253 321.1 20 79.25 10 0.236 315.4 21 77.15 20 0.269 346.6

The most interesting temporal patterns of stimulation in this Exampleare from batches 15, 17, and 18. Batch 15 produced a temporal pattern ofstimulation with an average frequency of 98 Hz with an error fraction aslow as 0.098. Thus, it outperformed the 100 Hz constant-frequency caseby managing to lower the error even further at roughly the samefrequency. Still, the qualitatively useful features of batch 15 aredifficult to discern. Batch 17 was also appealing because of its verylow frequency of 67.82. This low frequency was gained at the cost ofincreased error at 0.253, but it may nonetheless be useful if emphasisis placed on maintaining low frequency DBS. The qualitative features ofbatch 17 indicated at first a ramp followed by a continual switchingbetween low and high IPI's. Lastly, batch 18 stood somewhere in themiddle with a fairly low frequency of 87.62 and low error fraction of0.116, only marginally higher than the healthy condition of 0.1. Thedominant qualitative feature of batch 18's waveform is that it too showsa ramp nature in that the IPI initially steadily falls, then quicklyrises, falls, and then rises. The rapid changing between high and lowIPI of batch 17 can be envisioned as a set of steep ramps.

A comparison of Batch 17 (FIG. 4) and Batch 18 (FIG. 5) demonstrates howthe balance between efficacy (as a function of the model error fractionE) and efficiency (as a function of frequency f) in non-regular temporalpatterns of stimulation can be purposefully tailored to meet clinicalobjectives. The systems and methodologies discussed allow changing thecost function by weighting efficacy or frequency more heavily (i.e., bychanging W and/or K), while still yielding temporal patterns ofstimulation with lower cost results than the constant-frequencywaveforms. Comparing Batch 17 with Batch 18, one sees that the errorfraction (E) (i.e., the efficacy of the temporal pattern) of Batch 17(0.253) is greater than the error fraction (E) (i.e., the efficacy ofthe temporal pattern) of Batch 18 (0.116). However, one can also seethat the efficiency (i.e., the average frequency) of Batch 17 (67.82 Hz)is lower than the efficiency (i.e., the average frequency) of Batch 18(81.28 Hz). Through different in terms of efficacy and efficiency, bothBatch 17 and Batch 18 have costs better than constant-frequency temporalpatterns.

FIG. 11 depicts a modeled raster of healthy firing of neurons in thesubthalamic nucleus and the global pallidus, both external and internalsegments thereof, through about one second of time.

FIG. 12 depicts a modeled raster of the healthy subject modeled in FIG.11, with the addition of a forced Parkinsonian state, however with deepbrain stimulation not being applied to the model. Like the raster ofFIG. 11, this Figure depicts neurons in the subthalamic nucleus and theglobal pallidus, both external and internal segments thereof, throughabout one second of time.

FIG. 13 depicts a modeled raster of the modeled Parkinsonian subject ofFIG. 12, however further applying a regular 45 Hz regular interval DBSsignal to the subthalamic nucleus, as can be seen. Additionally, thefigure shows the firing of neurons in the global pallidus, both externaland internal segments thereof, through about one second of time.

FIG. 14 depicts a modeled raster of the modeled Parkinsonian subject ofFIG. 12, however further applying a regular 100 Hz regular interval DBSsignal to the subthalamic nucleus, as can be seen. Additionally, thefigure shows the firing of neurons in the global pallidus, both externaland internal segments thereof, through about one second of time.

FIG. 15 depicts a graphical representation of modeled, conventionallyexpected error fractions where a regular interval DBS signal is appliedto the Parkinsonian model. The goal in determining optimum stimulationpatterns may be to provide a stimulation pattern that has a loweraverage frequency with at least as good, if not better (lower) errorfractions than regular interval DBS signals presented to the STN. By wayof a non-limiting example, with DBS off (average frequency=0 Hz), themodel provides that an expected error fraction may be about 0.34 toabout 0.40. With a regular interval stimulation pattern applied to theSTN at about 45 Hz, the expected error fraction is about 0.20 to about0.25. According to the model, and therefore generally accepted in thefield, higher average frequency regular interval stimulation yields alower error fraction. Accordingly, if stimulation could be provided atan average frequency of about 45 Hz with a modeled error fraction lessthan that expected (i.e., less than about 0.20), benefits would berealized. Not only would relief from brain disorders be improved, butpower consumption by any device delivering the new stimulation patterns,would be reduced as compared to the same device delivering regularinterval stimulation patterns in an attempt to achieve similarperformance results.

FIG. 16 provides an illustration of a model structure that may be usedto generate stimulation patterns according to the present invention.Reference to this illustration may be helpful in explaining what isreferred to herein as an “error fraction.” As used herein, an “errorfraction” is generally understood to mean the number of errors occurringat the output of a model as compared to the number of inputs provided tothe model. An output error occurs when a contrast arises between anexpected value of the model output to an output generated by the modelprovided with a given stimulation pattern, such as to the STN, as shown.

FIG. 17 generally depicts a known genetic algorithm process model,beginning with the generation of organisms (in this case pulse trains orstimulation patterns), and continuing as described above. One method fora mating process that may be employed in the genetic algorithm accordingto the present invention is a single crossover process by which certain,but preferably not all, genes (stimulation pulses) are exchanged betweenparent stimulation trains so as to yield two child stimulation trainsare generated. As depicted in FIG. 18, the stimulation patterns includea series of 1's and 0's, which indicate whether or not, respectively, astimulation pulse is to be delivered during a given time step, such asabout 500 microseconds to about 100 milliseconds, and preferably aboutone to 5 milliseconds. While initial or starting stimulation patternsmay be created by drawing interpulse intervals from some distribution,such as a Gaussian distribution, the initial stimulation patterns arepreferably generated randomly, and constraints may be added to controlthe number of stimulation pulses (l's) in the initial stimulationpatterns, thereby controlling the average frequency range of thestimulation pattern. Resulting generational stimulation patterns arethen evaluated by the model and compared to the performance of regularinterval stimulation patterns provided to the model at the same averagefrequency as the generational stimulation pattern currently underevaluation.

Another cost function that has proven useful in determining beneficialnon-regular temporal patterns of stimulation generated by a geneticalgorithm is as follows: C=(E_(GA)−E_(FMReg))/E_(FMReg)*100% whereE_(GA) is the error fraction of a selected generational stimulationpattern generated by the genetic algorithm and currently under analysisby the model and E_(FMReg) is the error fraction of a DBS stimulationpattern of uniform frequency at a frequency equal to the averagefrequency of the GA train under analysis. This may be referred togenerally as a percent change cost function. At first, one might expectthat this cost function would not force a genetic algorithm to searchfor non-regular patterns of DBS with a low average frequency. However,this is not the case; the GA is inclined to search for non-regularstimulation pattern of DBS with a low average frequency because there isa greater opportunity to find improved stimulation patterns (i.e.,having a lower error fraction) at lower frequencies. That is, as shownin FIG. 15, the error fraction associated with 130 Hz conventionalregular-interval DBS is already so close to zero that it is highlyunlikely that a non-regular pattern with an average frequency of 130 Hzis going to have a smaller error fraction. In other words, there just isnot much room to improve at 130 Hz. On the other hand, at 45 Hz, thereis ample room for improvement. It is much more likely that a non-regularpattern of DBS with an average frequency of 45 Hz will be found that hasa better performance than conventional regular-interval DBS provided at45 Hz. Therefore, using a percent decrease cost function implicitlyincorporates the average frequency of DBS while helping to minimizecomplications of selecting weighting parameters, as with the other costfunctions discussed herein. As shown in FIG. 19, it is beneficial to runthe genetic algorithm through a plurality of generations so as todecrease the cost. This figure shows the (decline in) cost as thegenetic algorithm progresses. That is, the algorithm is identifyingbetter and better stimulation patterns, from generation to generation,and subsequently the cost is declining, or, in other words, theperformance is increasing.

Three stimulation trains generated according to the present inventionutilizing the percent change cost function to guide survival andpropagation are shown in FIGS. 20-22. In FIG. 20, a preferred GA1stimulation train is shown as being applied to the STN of a Parkinsonionbrain model. The preferred stimulation pattern includes the repetitionof a set 100 of three triplet stimulation pulses 100A,100B,100C, whereeach triplet preferably comprises a singlet 102 followed by a doublet104. Through any given set 100 of triplets, the interpulse intervalbetween the singlet and doublet of one triplet is preferably differentthan the interpulse interval between the singlet and doublet of at leastone other triplet, and more preferably different than each interpulseinterval between the singlet and doublet of all other triplets in theset 100. Furthermore, the interpulse interval within the doublets ofeach triplet is preferably different than at least one other doubletinterpulse interval within that set 100, and more preferably theinterpulse interval within each doublet in a given set 100 is differentthan the interpulse interval within each other doublet in that set 100.While the interpulse intervals between the singlets and doublets of agiven set, and within the doublets of the given set, may vary (as muchas integer factors), the interpulse interval between each triplet withina given set preferably remains relatively constant, such as by varyingless than about 10% throughout the set.

In each of the described preferred stimulation patterns, a given set tobe repeated includes at least one doublet and at least one singlet. Asin the case of the GA1 train, the number of singlets and doublets in agiven set 100 was equal (three of each). As in the case of the GA2pattern set 200, as shown in FIG. 21, the number of doublets faroutweighed the number of singlets (80% of n-lets were doublets asopposed to 20% as singlets). As in the case of the GA3 pattern set 300,as shown in FIG. 22, the number of doublets outweighed the number ofsinglets (60% of n-lets were doublets as opposed to 40% as singlets).Accordingly, it may be more preferable to include, in a givenstimulation pattern to be repeatedly delivered to the subthalamicnucleus or other portion of the brain, one or more singlets and one ormore doublets, where the number of doublets is equal to or greater thanthe number of singlets in the set.

As shown in FIG. 23, the stimulation patterns generated according to thepresent invention have a much lower error fraction value as compared totheir regular interval stimulation counterparts at frequencies less than100 Hz. For example, at 45 Hz, regular interval DBS has an errorfraction of about 20 in 100 (0.20) to about 25 in 100 (0.25). On theother hand, the stimulation patterns generated according to the presentinvention provide a modeled error fraction of about 5 in 100 to about 15in 100, thereby demonstrating a 25% to 80% improvement in efficiency.

An electrical stimulation pattern created according to the presentinvention (GA1) was experimentally applied to two human patients thathad been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease. The GA1 pattern was appliedduring intraoperative experiments that were conducted by connecting toan exposed lead of a previously implanted DBS electrode during animplantable pulse generator replacement surgery. After connection, theGA1 pattern of stimulation and a few control patterns were delivered.Motor impairment was quantified while delivering the patterns ofstimulation using a known finger-tapping task. To measure the effect ofthe DBS stimulation patterns according to the present invention, atwo-button computer mouse was utilized, and the patient was instructedto, during data collection times, alternate clicking a respective mousebutton with their index finger and their middle finger. The timeduration of the respective button clicks was then recorded by a computerand analyzed. The time duration of one or both fingers may be analyzed,depending upon statistical results. As can be seen in FIG. 24, the GA1stimulation pattern allowed each patient to demonstrate an increase inmotor function as compared to the regular interval DBS stimulationpattern provided at the same average frequency, thus indicating anincreased benefit in performance with no sacrifice to average cost(i.e., no increase in average power). Furthermore, for Patient 1, theGA1 stimulation pattern caused the patient to perform substantiallysimilar to motor function demonstrated under application of a regularinterval DBS stimulation pattern of 185 Hz, thus indicating substantialsimilar performance with a great cost (i.e. power) reduction(stimulation provided at an average of 45 Hz instead of 185 Hz).Finally, with respect to Patient 2, the GA1 stimulation pattern causedthe patient to perform better than the motor function demonstrated underapplication of a regular interval DBS stimulation pattern of 185 Hz,thus indicating improved performance with a great cost (i.e. power)reduction (stimulation provided at an average of 45 Hz instead of 185Hz). Generally speaking, then, the 45 Hz average frequency stimulationpattern designed according to the present invention performed similarlyor better than conventional 185 Hz regular DBS stimulation and betterthan frequency matched (45 Hz) regular stimulation. Further clinicalexperiments have been conducted in applying stimulation to the STN usingstimulation patterns generated according to the present invention, andsuch experiments show promising results.

An electrical stimulation pattern created according to the presentinvention (GA1) was also tested in one human subject with Parkinson'sdisease where tremor was that subject's primary motor symptom. Thesubject's tremor was quantified using as accelerometer on the back ofthe subject's contralateral wrist.

Tremor was measured in the contralateral limb during unilateralstimulation with a temporal pattern of stimulation generated accordingto the present invention having an average frequency of about 45 Hz,regular 45 Hz and 185 Hz stimulation, and with stimulation off(controls) in a single intraoperative session with a human subject. Thestimulation pattern was presented to the subject, and the subject wasblinded to the experimental condition. The trial began with one minuteof stimulation off, with baseline tremor measured for 20 secondsbeginning about 30 seconds into these intervals, and about 30 secondsafter each condition was initiated experimental tremor was measured for20 seconds (Ex. FIG. 28A).

Tremor was measured using an accelerometer (Crossbow CXL04LP3; 5V/4 gsensitivity, San Jose, Calif., USA) taped to the dorsum of the hand. Theamplitude of tremor recorded by an accelerometer generally correlateswell with clinical tremor rating scales. To obtain a single quantitativemeasure of tremor, the power spectral density was calculated for each ofthe three acceleration signals (AX, AY, and AZ, Ex. FIG. 28B) using thepsd function (power spectral density, Welch's averaged periodogram,Hanning window, FFT length=5,000) in MATLAB (Mathworks Inc., Natick,Mass., USA). Next, we integrated each spectrum from 2-20 Hz to get PX,PY, and PZ. Finally, we summed PX, PY, and PZ, and took the log of thesum to get a single metric of tremor. The frequency range of 2-20 Hz waschosen to include the primary and several harmonics of the tremor and toexclude steady state acceleration due to gravity.

As mentioned, the power spectral density for the acceleration signal wasintegrated from 2-20 Hz in order to get a single quantitative measure ofthe tremor amplitude. As can be seen in FIG. 25, the stimulation patterngenerated according the present invention having an average frequency ofabout 45 Hz (GA1) reduced the tremor amplitude more than the regular 45Hz stimulation but slightly less than regular 185 Hz stimulation. Allthree patterns of stimulation reduced tremor amplitude compared to thestimulation off condition.

FIG. 26 provides a spectral analysis of the average power across 10 GPineurons for a single stimulation pattern iteration applying theindicated stimulation pattern to a forced Parkinsonian state in a model.As can be seen, there is significant oscillatory or synchronous activitygenerated around 15 Hz in the Parkinsonian state when the DBS input isoff. The 45 Hz regular interval stimulation does not lessen suchactivity much, but the 185 Hz regular interval stimulation does.Accordingly, there may be a correlation between an attenuation of suchoscillatory or synchronous activity and the effectiveness of a given DBSstimulation pattern. Indeed, it has been observed that such attenuationis at least correlated to an improvement in movement, especially inanimals that have a previously demonstrated or induced state ofbradykinesia.

FIG. 27 provides an example tuning curve to analyze the 10-30 Hz globalpallidus internal (GPi) neuronal power. That is, the spectra for 10 GPineurons in a model were averaged for each stimulation state across 10iterations. The plotted points indicate the average power of the GPispike times across all 10 GPi neurons, averaged across the 10stimulation iterations at each stimulation state. As can be seen, thepower demonstrated in the 10-30 Hz frequencies by the GPi neurons (whichare generally correlated to a neurological condition) is greatly reducedby the application of stimulation patterns that have been clinicallyshown to assist in reducing negative effects of such conditions.Accordingly, stimulation patterns according to the present invention maybe, and have found to be, directed towards or involve the reduction ofthe average power of GPi oscillatory or synchronous activity. In fact,as shown in FIG. 27, an attenuation of at least about 25% of oscillatoryactivity caused by an actual animal neurological condition or aneurological condition model, but more preferably an attenuation ofabout 50% or greater, may be achieved using stimulation patternsaccording to the present invention.

The power of the oscillatory or synchronous activity that may bemodeled, or measured from a patient, as correlated to a neurologicalcondition may be used in alternative cost functions according to anotherembodiment of the present invention for optimizing stimulation patterns.One cost function that may be employed by an optimization algorithm ortechnique according to the present invention is as follows:C=(P_(GA)−P_(FMReg))/P_(FMReg)*100% where PGA is the average powergenerated by a computer model, over a given frequency range, of thefiring of one or more GPi neurons when a selected generationalstimulation pattern, which was initially created or generated by thegenetic algorithm, is applied to the STN in the model and PFMReg is thepower generated by a computer model, over the same given frequencyrange, of the firing the same GPi neurons when a DBS stimulation patternof uniform frequency at a frequency equal to the average frequency ofthe GA train under analysis. The given frequency range may be a singlefrequency (e.g. 15 Hz) or a set of preferably contiguous frequencies(e.g. 10-30 Hz) or a set of noncontiguous frequencies (e.g. 15, 20, and30 Hz).

Another cost function, using oscillatory power, that may be used tooptimize stimulation patterns is as follows: C=W*P+K*f, where C is thecost, P is the average power generated by a computer model, over a givenfrequency range, of the firing of one or more GPi neurons when aselected generational stimulation pattern, which was initially createdor generated by the genetic algorithm, is applied to the STN in themodel, f is the average frequency of the generational pattern ofstimulation, W is an appropriate weighting factor for the average power,and K is an appropriate weighting factor for the frequency. The givenfrequency range may be a single frequency (e.g. 15 Hz) or a set ofpreferably contiguous frequencies (e.g. 10-30 Hz) or a set ofnoncontiguous frequencies (e.g. 15, 20, and 30 Hz). The weightingfactors W and K allow quantitative differentiation between efficacy (asa function of P) and efficiency (as a function of f) to generatepatterns of non-constant inter-pulse interval deep brain stimulationtrains that provide advantageous results with lower average frequencies,compared to conventional constant frequency pulse trains.

The non-regular temporal patterns of stimulation generated and disclosedabove therefore make possible achieving at least the same or equivalent(and expectedly better) clinical efficacy at a lower average frequencycompared to conventional constant-frequency temporal patterns. The loweraverage frequencies of the non-regular temporal stimulation patternsmake possible increases in efficiency and expand the therapeutic windowof amplitudes that can be applied to achieve the desired result beforeside effects are encountered.

DBS is a well-established therapy for treatment of movement disorders,but the lack of understanding of mechanisms of action has limited fulldevelopment and optimization of this treatment. Previous studies havefocused on DBS-induced increases or decreases in neuronal firing ratesin the basal ganglia and thalamus. However, recent data suggest thatchanges in neuronal firing patterns may be at least as important aschanges in firing rates.

The above described systems and methodologies make it possible todetermine the effects of the temporal pattern of DBS on simulated andmeasured neuronal activity, as well as motor symptoms in both animalsand humans. The methodologies make possible the qualitative andquantitative determination of the temporal features of low frequencystimulation trains that preserve efficacy.

The systems and methodologies described herein provide robust insightinto the effects of the temporal patterns of DBS, and thereby illuminatethe mechanisms of action. Exploiting this understanding, new temporalpatterns of stimulation may be developed, using model-basedoptimization, and tested, with the objective and expectation to increaseDBS efficacy and increase DBS efficiency by reducing DBS side effects.

The invention provides non-regular stimulation patterns or trains thatcan create a range of motor effects from exacerbation of symptoms torelief of symptoms. The non-regular stimulation patterns or trainsdescribed herein and their testing according to the methodologydescribed herein will facilitate the selection of optimal surgicaltargets as well as treatments for new disorders. The non-regularstimulation patterns or trains described herein make possible improvedoutcomes of DBS by potentially reducing side effects and prolongingbattery life. The extended battery life will result from a lower averagefrequency of stimulation (45 Hz vs. 100 or 185 Hz), thereby deliveringless electrical current over time. Surgeries to replace depleted pulsegenerators will be needed less frequently and the costs that a DBSpatient can expect with the DBS system will be diminished.

The foregoing is considered as illustrative only of the principles ofthe invention. Furthermore, since numerous modifications and changes mayreadily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limitthe invention to the exact construction and operation shown anddescribed. While the preferred embodiment has been described, thedetails may be changed without departing from the invention. Forinstance, although the disclosed embodiments of an algorithm used togenerate stimulation patterns is an evolutionary algorithm, namely agenetic algorithm, the scope of the methods for this technology is notlimited to genetic algorithms. Indeed, the scope of the presentinvention includes other contemplated model-based optimizationtechniques including, but not limited to, other evolutionary algorithms,swarm intelligence algorithms, and other optimization techniques ormetaheuristic. The scope of the present invention is not limited to anyparticular model of a neurological disorder, such as PD. Present orfuture models of neurological disorders that are treated with DBS, orother electrical stimulation, are candidates for use with the methodsdescribed herein. Furthermore, while certain electrical stimulationpatterns have been clinically applied in an effort to quantify theirefficacy and efficiency, it will be appreciated that the scope of thepresent invention is not necessarily limited to any particularstimulation pattern as disclosed, but rather the scope of the presentinvention encompasses all patterns generated according hereto. Theclaims as follows are intended to include all modifications andalterations insofar as they come within the scope of the claims or theequivalent thereof.

Having thus described the invention, the following is claimed:
 1. Aneural stimulation device comprising: a pulse generator transmittingtemporal patterns of stimulation to neurological tissue through at leastone electrode operatively coupled with the pulse generator, saidtemporal patterns including: a first temporal pattern having a firstnon-regular pulse train comprising a plurality of pulses havingdiffering inter-pulse intervals between pulses to treat a neurologicalcondition, said first temporal pattern adapted from applying a firstmodel-based optimization technique; and subsequent temporal patternshaving a subsequent non-regular pulse train comprising a plurality ofpulses having non-regular inter-pulse intervals between the pulses totreat a neurological condition, wherein the subsequent temporal patternsare: (a) adapted from applying the model-based optimization technique,and (b) not constant in their nature.
 2. The neural stimulation deviceof claim 1, wherein the pulse generator is configured to apply at leastone of the first and subsequent temporal patterns of stimulation inrepeating succession, whereby the first temporal pattern is differentfrom the second temporal pattern.
 3. The neural stimulation device ofclaim 2, further comprising an output port configured in the pulsegenerator configured to operatively attach the at least one electrode.4. The neural stimulation device of claim 3, wherein the at least oneelectrode is operatively attached to the output port.
 5. The neuralstimulation device of claim 4, wherein the at least one electrode is animplanted lead.
 6. The neural stimulation device of claim 1, wherein themodel-based optimization technique includes applying at least one of: agenetic algorithm, swarm intelligence algorithms, and metaheuristic. 7.A method for stimulation of a targeted neurological tissue regioncomprising the steps of: applying electrical current to a targetedneurological tissue region of an animal using a pulse generatoroperatively coupled with at least one electrode according to a firstnon-regular pulse train comprising a plurality of pulses havingdiffering inter-pulse intervals between the pulses to treat aneurological condition, wherein the first non-regular pulse train isadapted from applying a model-based optimization technique; applying themodel-based optimization technique creating a subsequent non-regularpulse train comprising a plurality of second pulses having non-regularinter-pulse intervals between the second pulses; and applying electricalcurrent to the targeted neurological tissue region of the animal usingthe pulse generator and through the at least one electrode according tothe subsequent non-regular pulse train.
 8. The method of claim 7,further comprising the step of repeating the applying electrical currentto the targeted neurological tissue region of the animal using the pulsegenerator according to the subsequent non-regular pulse train insuccession, wherein the subsequent non-regular pulse train is differentfrom the first non-regular pulse train.
 9. The method of claim 7,wherein the model-based optimization technique includes applying atleast one of: a genetic algorithm, swarm intelligence algorithms, andmetaheuristic.
 10. The method of claim 7, further comprising the step ofoperatively connecting the at least one electrode to the pulsegenerator.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the at least oneelectrode is an implanted lead.
 12. The method of claim 7, wherein thestep of analyzing results of the first non-regular pulse train includesquantitatively assessing the first non-regular pulse train having anefficiency measure, E, and an efficacy measure, S.
 13. The method ofclaim 12, wherein the step of analyzing results of the first non-regularpulse train includes applying a cost function (C) for the firstnon-regular pulse train based upon E and S, the cost function weightingE and S differentially to minimize E and S.
 14. The method of claim 13,wherein the step of analyzing results of the first non-regular pulsetrain includes applying the cost function to evaluate the cost of thefirst non-regular pulse train.
 15. The method of claim 7, wherein themodel-based optimization technique includes applying at least one of: agenetic algorithm, simulated annealing, particle swarm optimization, antcolony optimization, and intelligent water drops.
 16. The neuralstimulation device of claim 1, wherein the model-based optimizationtechnique includes applying at least one of: a genetic algorithm,simulated annealing, particle swarm optimization, ant colonyoptimization, and intelligent water drops.
 17. The method of claim 12,wherein E is an average stimulation pulse rate.
 18. The method of claim17, wherein S is a rate or a pattern of neural activity.
 19. The methodof claim 12, wherein S is a rate or a pattern of neural activity.